25.08.2012 23:02, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет: > Am 25.08.2012 21:47, schrieb Andrew: >> 25.08.2012 22:30, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет: >>> Am 25.08.2012 21:20, schrieb Andrew: >>>> 25.08.2012 22:12, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет: >>>>> Am 25.08.2012 17:29, schrieb Andrew: >>>>>> 25.08.2012 18:21, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет: >>>>>>> Am 25.08.2012 16:53, schrieb Andrew: >>>>>>>> Hi all. >>>>>>>> Now we have separate mawk package. At same time, there is a busybox awk >>>>>>>> implementation. >>>>>>>> So I have a question: do we really have a separate AWK? And what >>>>>>>> difference between mawk and busybox awk? At >>>>>>>> http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/29576/difference-between-gawk-vs-awk >>>>>>>> I saw opinion that bb awk is richer in features than mawk... >>>>>>> Doing a quick I haven't found a feature comparision between busbox awk >>>>>>> and mawk, any the link above reads: >>>>>>> "richer in features than *n*awk" >>>>>> Right. But gawk seems to have richer feature list than mawk. From other >>>>>> side, mawk seems to be a bit faster - but not too much, and in our case >>>>>> we haven't a huge awk programs in distro, so speed isn't too critical. >>>>>>> Don't no if it will be an easy transition from mawk to bb awk... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> kp >>>>>> I think that it'll be enough just to enable awk in busybox... >>>>> Of course :) >>>>> >>>>>> I'll try this. >>>>> Ok, >>>>> >>>>> but I guess it needs a lot of testing - packages that requires mawk are >>>>> iptables, webconf and openswan - and adjusting esp. the last one is IMHO >>>>> no fun. >>>>> >>>>> kp >>>>> >>>> I'll add changes into next branch; I'll not remove mawk.lrp, just remove >>>> it from dependencies. So anybody can test it's work, and, if needed, >>>> load mawk to ensure that bug is provided by busybox. >>> Ok, >>> can we please make shure that this change(s) will be kept in next >>> (whereas the upnpd build fix shoud go to master), so we don't mess up a >>> mostly stable alpha version? >>> I'm shure it'll take some time until someone tests openswan :( >> We can leave dependency on mawk for openswan in alpha. Or make note that >> if somebody expects troubles or want to speedup ohenswan he may load >> mawk.lrp > So mawk will simply overwrite bb awk? > Could be a nice solution for the transition. We may just fix path to mawk binary if it's needed. I'll run rebuilding from scratch and look where is bb awk applet is actually placed. >>> It will be also interesting how much space we will win if replacing mawk >>> (which is about 46kb) and if the possible win is worth the effort. >>> kp >>> >> I think that win will be not so big, but we become free from one of >> packages that is required for 'core system'. > point given. > > I looked into the latest commit - can't see busybox config that enables awk. Fixed. > Also you've added telnet in busybox weeks ago. We do have netkit-telnet > package. What's the purpose to have telnet in busybox? > To me telnet is heavily suspect due to security reasons and I'd like to > avoid it. Even netkit-telnet has been a concessin to user demands. Quagga, accel-ppp and so on listens on local socket (@127.0.0.1) and uses telnet protocol. Also a lot of hardware uses telnet protocol by default. So telnet in base system can be enough useful - client has small size, and client can't cause any security issue. > And if we'll provide a telent with busybox, do we still need netkit-telnet? > > kp If netkit-telnet is just client, not server - I think that we can drop them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
